Guido's claims are nonsense. Look at the url you posted -- from that anyone can tell which article you and I have both read. He is right that the traffic is encrypted so that if you'd typed in your password, or the page included some PlatoSaid-specific dynamic content such as your bank balance, it would not be readable by a third party passively observing or hoping to interfere with the network packets. There is a movement towards using https everywhere, which is probably a good thing, but Guido's extravagant claims could have been written by Hillary Clinton herself.
Labour would prefer the two by-elections to be on different dates but it may be difficult to engineer that without looking ridiculous. It'll be Lab vs Con in Copeland and Lab vs UKIP in Stoke Central.
There would be nothing at all ridiculous about holding them on different dates. Timing will surely be affected by when Hunt resigns his seat.
"The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote late Thursday that FBI Director James Comey should resign, and charged him with politicizing decisions at the FBI that have hurt both parties.
"Mr. Comey has a long history of apparently political decisions, a point we underscored when President Obama nominated him for the FBI job in 2013," the board said. That includes pushing for the prosecution of Republican targets like Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and others.
"Liberals didn't mind these prosecutorial excesses because they didn't like Mr. Comey's targets," the board said. But recently, Comey has been blamed by Democrats for helping President-elect Trump defeat Hillary Clinton, by revealing an extended investigation into her emails with just days to go before the November election.
"Because both parties dislike him does not make Mr. Comey an honest arbiter who is above politics," the board wrote. "His actions reveal that he is willing to violate Justice Department procedure and standards for his own political purposes."
Problem for Balls is he would have to get selected first..
why bother, if the seat is to disappear under boundary changes?
Because the boundary changes may not happen.
Because the seat does not disappear under the initial proposed boundary changes . It is renamed Stoke South ,
Nevertheless, if Lab hold the seat the Stoke C and Stoke S MPs will be fighting it out for 1 seat (the new Stoke S) as the new Staffs W seat would be safely Con.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
As some pollsters point out, support for grammar schools falls significantly when you remind the voters that more grammar schools equals more seconds moderns for those who fail to get into a grammar school.
All this debate is looking at teh wrong end of the issue.
Comprehensives in working class areas struggle to attract - let alone retain - good heads and teachers. So they are often doomed to fail..
Grammar schools in the same areas tend to have more success at both..
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.
That doesn't make any sense. If he believes in comprehensive education and only selective education is available, it makes no difference which of the selective schools he sends his kid to. They are all equally contrary to his opinion.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.
That doesn't make any sense. If he believes in comprehensive education and only selective education is available, it makes no difference which of the selective schools he sends his kid to. They are all equally contrary to his opinion.
Agreed. I wonder what percentage of kids don't bother sitting the 11+ and just go to the comp?
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
But, at the same same, improving prospects for a greater number of people, hence doing a net good.
A similar analogy might be being in a lifeboat where there's just about enough food to ensure that everyone reaches shore alive if it is eked out, but people are gobbling it up as fast as they can. It would make good sense to campaign for the introduction of a rationing system, but, unless the policy is implemented, I'd be suicide to stop eating as fast as you can yourself.
The lifeboat analogy is the same as the fixed lump of Labour fallacy. If some schools are better than others. Copy the good practice and weed out the bad practice. You don't make poor schools good by making the good schools less good. Full disclosure, I don't have any kids of my own to worry about their education.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fixed lump of labour fallacy. Rather, it is a hypothetical situation in which you have a choice between a scenario in which a few benefit substantially while most are severely disadvantaged or one in which all have a reasonable chance.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.
Problem for Balls is he would have to get selected first..
why bother, if the seat is to disappear under boundary changes?
Because the boundary changes may not happen.
Because the seat does not disappear under the initial proposed boundary changes . It is renamed Stoke South ,
Nevertheless, if Lab hold the seat the Stoke C and Stoke S MPs will be fighting it out for 1 seat (the new Stoke S) as the new Staffs W seat would be safely Con.
If Labour do hold the seat, whoever does hold it will be almost certain of being selected for one of the new seats.
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
Sam was doing PB Time when the Oldham election was on so I was his runner for @Pong:
Amusing convo here - @Pong look at what you could have won
Lab 20-25 33/1 25+ 33/1
Me: Pong wants some of the 33s. Whats your limits
Sam: He had £15.15?
Me: No, he doesn't want any more because he's on at lower odds... Which I find a bit odd !
Sam:He doesn't want anything??
Me:Am asking him ! No reply so far.
if isam had a gambling license, I'd have taken him to the cleaners.
I think I was trying to get with Labour winning by 10-20% at first... when all the money went on a tight labour win I moved the odds too far in that direction.
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The Walker is an exceptional provincial gallery. I saw a Tony Ray Jones/Martin Parr photographic exhibition there recently which was excellent. There are so many new and innovative galleries in Liverpool at the moment-including the Tate-mos of which seem full to overflowing. They've obviously got a forward looking council
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
Yes I'm afraid you are a total hypocrite if that's your position. Sorry to be so blunt.
That doesn't make any sense. If he believes in comprehensive education and only selective education is available, it makes no difference which of the selective schools he sends his kid to. They are all equally contrary to his opinion.
Agreed. I wonder what percentage of kids don't bother sitting the 11+ and just go to the comp?
In my fairly middle class part of Trafford, about 50%. But note that most non-grammars here are as good or better than comps in neighbouring authorities, so maybe less pressure to get in to a grammar.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
But, at the same same, improving prospects for a greater number of people, hence doing a net good.
A similar analogy might be being in a lifeboat where there's just about enough food to ensure that everyone reaches shore alive if it is eked out, but people are gobbling it up as fast as they can. It would make good sense to campaign for the introduction of a rationing system, but, unless the policy is implemented, I'd be suicide to stop eating as fast as you can yourself.
The lifeboat analogy is the same as the fixed lump of Labour fallacy. If some schools are better than others. Copy the good practice and weed out the bad practice. You don't make poor schools good by making the good schools less good. Full disclosure, I don't have any kids of my own to worry about their education.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fixed lump of labour fallacy. Rather, it is a hypothetical situation in which you have a choice between a scenario in which a few benefit substantially while most are severely disadvantaged or one in which all have a reasonable chance.
In your analogy of a lifeboat there is a fixed amount of food. Unless someone has some fishing kit with them.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
You've had lots of good (if sometimes contradictory) answers, so here's mine:
You are not a politician, and therefore are not particularly being hypocritical. The problem with politicians is they they're taking advantage of something they think is bad and are therefore trying to prevent others from taking advantage of.
If you were to campaign against them, you'd also be being hypocritical. And I agree with the point someone made about coaching.
There's also an argument to be made that by denying your long comp a good child, you're pushing them down. If you believe in inclusivity it should apply to you and yours as much as it does to others.
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
Wasn’t the accusation that being the Director of the VAM was about as elitists as you can get, rather than the museum itself which is open to all for free? Might be wrong but that's how I read it.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.
We need a museum of plebs, with sections covering their rich history from Roman times to the modern day.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
Fill in and sign a form, and get a one-off free entry, or residents card. We do it for gift aid all the time. Or show a UK driver's licence, or similar.
Tourists - who can't - have to pay.
I'm not sure I buy SeanT's arguments on museums being a national economic multiplier from tourists. Tourism was booming here in the 1990s as well (when museums charged) but plenty are now struggling now for want of grants or funding. Museums charging worldwide is common, and not much of a deterrent.
Funding shortages are much more of a problem, and closures are a greater threat to culture.
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
Wasn’t the accusation that being the Director of the VAM was about as elitists as you can get, rather than the museum itself which is open to all for free? Might be wrong but that's how I read it.
Might have been; if so it's a weak-ish point also. Elitist in being an intelligent, competent manager with a knowledge of history which presumably they think will be able to cross over to the arts. So elitist = post-grad education.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
But, at the same same, improving prospects for a greater number of people, hence doing a net good.
A similar analogy might be being in a lifeboat where there's just about enough food to ensure that everyone reaches shore alive if it is eked out, but people are gobbling it up as fast as they can. It would make good sense to campaign for the introduction of a rationing system, but, unless the policy is implemented, I'd be suicide to stop eating as fast as you can yourself.
The lifeboat analogy is the same as the fixed lump of Labour fallacy. If some schools are better than others. Copy the good practice and weed out the bad practice. You don't make poor schools good by making the good schools less good. Full disclosure, I don't have any kids of my own to worry about their education.
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fixed lump of labour fallacy. Rather, it is a hypothetical situation in which you have a choice between a scenario in which a few benefit substantially while most are severely disadvantaged or one in which all have a reasonable chance.
In your analogy of a lifeboat there is a fixed amount of food. Unless someone has some fishing kit with them.
Well, yes. But this is no more about the fixed amount of food than the Monty Hall problem is about doors.
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
The V&A does virtually nothing for me, personally.
Imperial War Museum, Science Museum and National History - yes, in that order.
I also loved the Museum of the Moving Image (gone) when I was a kid, and the Transport Museum. Beaulieu National Motor Museum? I'd be jumping off the walls.
Basically, I like war, machines, science, and technology. Most 'art' (not all) does nothing for me, nor pottery, trinkets or clothes.
And I think the British Museum is boring, which virtually no-one else agrees with me on.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
Fill in and sign a form, and get a one-off free entry, or residents card. We do it for gift aid all the time. Or show a UK driver's licence, or similar.
Tourists - who can't - have to pay.
I'm not sure I buy SeanT's arguments on museums being a national economic multiplier from tourists. Tourism was booming here in the 1990s as well (when museums charged) but plenty are now struggling now for want of grants or funding. Museums charging worldwide is common, and not much of a deterrent.
Funding shortages are much more of a problem, and closures are a greater threat to culture.
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
It's because they're one offs generally not to be seen again. Also they are housed in a free galllery/museum so more often than not the one off exhibitions are cheaper than they should be because they're riding on the back of a permanent collection.
And also as Sean said they're one of he attractions to our big cities particularly London and Edinburgh so they almost certainly pay for themselves by the additional tourists. I also think it adds to the sense of a creative hub for which the UK particularly London has a deserved reputation
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
It's because they're one offs generally not to be seen again. Also they are housed in a free galllery/museum so more often than not the one off exhibitions are cheaper than they should be because they're riding on the back of a permanent collection.
It still means standing in front of, say, a Barnett Newman. That is a big ask for not-particularly-specialists.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I .
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.
I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.
I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.
Problem for Balls is he would have to get selected first..
why bother, if the seat is to disappear under boundary changes?
Because the boundary changes may not happen.
Because the seat does not disappear under the initial proposed boundary changes . It is renamed Stoke South ,
Nevertheless, if Lab hold the seat the Stoke C and Stoke S MPs will be fighting it out for 1 seat (the new Stoke S) as the new Staffs W seat would be safely Con.
If Labour do hold the seat, whoever does hold it will be almost certain of being selected for one of the new seats.
It doesn't work like that. The current Lab rules are that you need 40% of your old seat to go into a new seat to be able to lay a claim.
For example on the provisional boundaries, Owen Smith's Pontypridd seat is split down the middle, so he can potentially challenge the Cynon Valley or Rhondda MPs for the new "Cynon Valley and Pontypridd" or "Rhondda and Llantrisant" seats.
On the other hand, Stephen Kinnock isn't able to challenge for Ogmore and Port Talbot as he only has 38% and so would have to go against the Neath MP for "Neath and Aberavon"
If Lab win Stoke C the new MP will have to go against the Stoke S MP for 1 seat. Likewise the if Lab win Copeland the new MP would have to go against the Workington MP for 1 seat. Perhaps this is part of the reason Reed and Hunt stood down as they weren't sure they would win against the other MPs.
I think I was about 11 or 12 when I visited the BM alone for the first time and have lost count of the number of times just spent visiting the ancient Egyptian halls. Needless to say I love the place and wished I could visit more often.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
You've had lots of good (if sometimes contradictory) answers, so here's mine:
You are not a politician, and therefore are not particularly being hypocritical. The problem with politicians is they they're taking advantage of something they think is bad and are therefore trying to prevent others from taking advantage of.
If you were to campaign against them, you'd also be being hypocritical. And I agree with the point someone made about coaching.
There's also an argument to be made that by denying your long comp a good child, you're pushing them down. If you believe in inclusivity it should apply to you and yours as much as it does to others.
To me honest, my opinions pro and contra grammar schools aren't that strong. On the whole I'm not in favour, but it's not an issue that I have very deep feelings about.
What intrigued me, though, is the accusation of hypocrisy. Generally speaking, it seems strange to me that it should be regarded as immoral to campaign against a system that you regard as disadvantageous to most people just because you happen to have been one of the few beneficiaries of the system.
Edit: Apologies to OGH, by the way, for any derailing of the thread. I'll shut up about this now.
I confess to wandering round the Walker Art Gallery when I first came to Liverpool and being amazed by the pictures. All free too. OK, I especially liked the ones with naked women but I'm not alone in that.
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
The thing that I find intriguing is that the paying exhibitions are always jammed full, timed entry, etc. That really is a lot of enthusiasm for whatever it is they're showing (and some of it is quite arcane).
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
It's because they're one offs generally not to be seen again. Also they are housed in a free galllery/museum so more often than not the one off exhibitions are cheaper than they should be because they're riding on the back of a permanent collection.
It still means standing in front of, say, a Barnett Newman. That is a big ask for not-particularly-specialists.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Don't be silly. This isn't snobbery. It's about paying for admission. Plenty of very wealthy tourists in London get a free ride at our expense (the taxpayer) and it reduces the money the museum has to do its work.
You could charge 50p for concessions, as many other historic sites do.
But I think it's important all pay something.
You mentioned people who don't appreciate what they are seeing. Sounds like snobbery to me.
Plenty of those extra visitors are spending money in the cafe or the gift shop.
By some measures London is the most visited city on earth, or the 2nd after Bangkok. Why do people come here? It's certainly not the weather. Part of the reason is the incredible culture, and the fact that some of the very best of this culture is free.
The money generated by 18 million foreign tourists is in the billions. Far outweighing the subsidies required to keep museums free.
Britain is more than London.
I doubt that many of the tourists would be put off visiting if the museums charged modest entry fees. Plenty of other places in London do.
So I'm not convinced about the specifics of the argument anyway but on the broader point, the principle that museums should be free closes off a source of income that might be vital to less fortunately sited institutions elsewhere in the country - and the notion that London museums could be free, subsidised by foreign travellers, while provincial ones charged would go down like an exhibit of cold sick among the voting public, even if there were economic logic to it.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I would have no problem charging tourists and allow residents to get in free. How that would work administratively, god knows.
Where I live in Dubai, there's resident discounts for a lot of the tourist attractions of 50-90%, on production of local ID card. More difficult in London though, where there's people from everywhere and no easy way of distinguishing residents from tourists.
At Christmas we dumped the little 'un on my family and went into Derby for the day. We went out for a meal (at the Silk Mill, some of the best pub grub we've had in ages) and then to Derby Museum and art gallery. I haven't been in there since I was a teenager, and it's been thoroughly modernised.
We ended up spending three hours inside when we should have been doing some retail therapy.
Yes, it's provincial. But Mrs J was amazed to find a painting she had known of since she was a child: Joseph Wright's 'The Orrery': a true masterpiece.
What shocked me most about Hunt's resignation was how I wasn't shocked. Reed and Hunt quoting should be shocking. Serious and intelligent fronk rank politicans who should confidently expect serious time in ministerial office before they retire. Yet both are voluntarily quoting to earn more money in the quasi public sector where there roots are. Neither became an MP by accident. They must be psychologically crushed. Yet who can blame them ? Both uber Blairites in heavily Leave voting seats the next 10 to 15 years are going to be unspeakably grim and that's besides boundry changes and deselection threats.
I should blame both of them for utter selfshness but I don't. The Titanic has been deliberately rammed into the Iceberg. They did their best. I can't blame them for being first to the life boats. I share neither of their particular politics but my views are niche. Any left of centre governing coalition in the UK is going to include the Reeds and Hunts of this world. But they are walking off the pitch. And I don't blame them.
Hunt is everything that is wrong with right on politics. He publically derides grammar education having been privately educated himself, and making a success of his career thanks to that very education. I cannot stand the man, and I cannot stand the destructive leftist anti-education ideology that him and his ilk carry around with them. I say a very good riddance to him.
I have few problems with someone who has been educated privately arguing against private or selective education. They can just say: "Yes, I had the advantage of such an education. It was not my choice. But having been through the system, I can see the problems it causes." etc, etc.
The hypocrisy is when people argue against such systems despite using them themselves; in the case of education, by sending their kids to such schools.
Can anybody think of a high-profile politician close to Corbyn who might have shown such hypocrisy in the past?
I'm not in favour of grammar schools, primarily because I feel that, overall, the benefits enjoyed by those who do make it into grammar school doesn't outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the majority who don't get in. However, I live in an area with grammar schools and have sent my own son to the local grammar school after he was offered a place. Is it really hypocritical of me to argue against such a system on the basis that it disadvantages the many, while making the best of the situation as it currently exists for my own purposes? Are we only allowed to argue against the status quo if we don't personally benefit from it?
You've had lots of good (if sometimes contradictory) answers, so here's mine:
You are not a politician, and therefore are not particularly being hypocritical. The problem with politicians is they they're taking advantage of something they think is bad and are therefore trying to prevent others from taking advantage of.
If you were to campaign against them, you'd also be being hypocritical. And I agree with the point someone made about coaching.
There's also an argument to be made that by denying your long comp a good child, you're pushing them down. If you believe in inclusivity it should apply to you and yours as much as it does to others.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.
I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.
I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.
We would not have spent three hours in Derby Museum over Christmas if there had been an entry fee. Not just because we're tight, but because an entrance fee acts as a barrier. As it is, we gave a donation as that *feels* different.
You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Turnout last night vs turnout in the referendum would be useful. Do you have the numbers?
At Christmas we dumped the little 'un on my family and went into Derby for the day. We went out for a meal (at the Silk Mill, some of the best pub grub we've had in ages) and then to Derby Museum and art gallery. I haven't been in there since I was a teenager, and it's been thoroughly modernised.
We ended up spending three hours inside when we should have been doing some retail therapy.
Yes, it's provincial. But Mrs J was amazed to find a painting she had known of since she was a child: Joseph Wright's 'The Orrery': a true masterpiece.
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.
I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.
I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.
We would not have spent three hours in Derby Museum over Christmas if there had been an entry fee. Not just because we're tight, but because an entrance fee acts as a barrier. As it is, we gave a donation as that *feels* different.
You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.
I'd actually go more often to the Natural History Museum, if I had to pay for it.
For me, it enhances my appreciation and heightens the experience, and I feel I have a stake in it.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Perhaps charge a fee for anyone who cannot demonstrate the correct use of the subjunctive in English? That way, most tourists and plebs would either be kept out or have to pay.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
Perhaps we should all be asked to sit a test at the reception desk to see if we are worthy of admission?
Don't be silly. This isn't snobbery. It's about paying for admission. Plenty of very wealthy tourists in London get a free ride at our expense (the taxpayer) and it reduces the money the museum has to do its work.
You could charge 50p for concessions, as many other historic sites do.
But I think it's important all pay something.
You mentioned people who don't appreciate what they are seeing. Sounds like snobbery to me.
Plenty of those extra visitors are spending money in the cafe or the gift shop.
By some measures London is the most visited city on earth, or the 2nd after Bangkok. Why do people come here? It's certainly not the weather. Part of the reason is the incredible culture, and the fact that some of the very best of this culture is free.
The money generated by 18 million foreign tourists is in the billions. Far outweighing the subsidies required to keep museums free.
Britain is more than London.
I doubt that many of the tourists would be put off visiting if the museums charged modest entry fees. Plenty of other places in London do.
So I'm not convinced about the specifics of the argument anyway but on the broader point, the principle that museums should be free closes off a source of income that might be vital to less fortunately sited institutions elsewhere in the country - and the notion that London museums could be free, subsidised by foreign travellers, while provincial ones charged would go down like an exhibit of cold sick among the voting public, even if there were economic logic to it.
Precisely. It's a very London-centric view. The policy itself is a sign of the problem with our politics.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Turnout last night vs turnout in the referendum would be useful. Do you have the numbers?
Edit
Referendum was 134,400 Last night 1,832
Equivalent of a sub sample
Council election turnout 28.6%. Referendum turnout 64.8%
Weirdly, had to go to BBC for referendum turnout as the official results on the Sunderland City Council website don't have turnout on them.
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.
I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.
I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.
We would not have spent three hours in Derby Museum over Christmas if there had been an entry fee. Not just because we're tight, but because an entrance fee acts as a barrier. As it is, we gave a donation as that *feels* different.
You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.
I'd actually go more often to the Natural History Museum, if I had to pay for it.
For me, it enhances my appreciation and heightens the experience, and I feel I have a stake in it.
Nothing stopping you making a donation.
It's awesome that you can take four kids out to the world's best science/art/history/etc for nothing more than the cost of travel and a packed lunch. Anyone who goes to a private attraction will attest to how quickly it all adds up.
At Christmas we dumped the little 'un on my family and went into Derby for the day. We went out for a meal (at the Silk Mill, some of the best pub grub we've had in ages) and then to Derby Museum and art gallery. I haven't been in there since I was a teenager, and it's been thoroughly modernised.
We ended up spending three hours inside when we should have been doing some retail therapy.
Yes, it's provincial. But Mrs J was amazed to find a painting she had known of since she was a child: Joseph Wright's 'The Orrery': a true masterpiece.
In my experience, retail therapy in Derby shouldn't take too long. Sadler Gate is a short street.
Pretty much agree, even with the new shopping centre. I used to know Derby like the back of my hand, but that new place just sends my compass haywire. "Where the f'ing 'eck is the exit to Liversage Street?"
I did want to go to Nottingham, but that city's even more anti-car than Cambridge.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Turnout last night vs turnout in the referendum would be useful. Do you have the numbers?
Edit
Referendum was 134,400 Last night 1,832
Equivalent of a sub sample
Council election turnout 28.6%. Referendum turnout 64.8%
Weirdly, had to go to BBC for referendum turnout as the official results on the Sunderland City Council website don't have turnout on them.
Actual numbers 134k vs 1.8k... difficult to draw too much from it
Personally, I wouldn't bother voting in a local council election, don't think I ever have.
Free entry to museums is one of those subsidies for the middle classes (like grammar schools) that is wildly popular among the otherwise economically flinty. I guess we'll wait for some time before a party proposes free entry to football matches.
Things really are deteriorating on a weekly basis. The organised parliamentary left in Britain is trapped in a pincer movement between Corbynism and the neonativism of post industrial voters.If the Blairites are surrendering then it's over. Worse still Corbynism is breeding with neonativism. Corbyn's wage ratios nonsense blotted out his new Red Brexit shift.
We're shifting to a new dialectic where British politics is defined as crudely George Osborne vs Nigel Farage. It's why May's triangulation between these two poles is being so successful in the short term at least. How the party structures catch up with this I don't know. But the real and present danger is this. We stop switching between Conservative and Labour governments and start switching between Mayist Conservative governments and Cameroonian Coalition ones.
The new high water mark for the British Left will be Clegg style coalition's draging the Conservatives away from it's new Mayist axis. Even this will be delayed because Clegg broke every rule of coalition government and destroyed the Liberal Democrats.
And of course ' Britain ' is now a contested term due to the SNP's separate project.
In effect we know have two centre right potential governments, the Single Market vs the Nissan Comfort letter. Kulturkampf replacing economic philosophy.
Charging for entry would have saved any number of small museums up and down the country which closed or merged after seeing funding cut.
I'd prefer to be charged rather than be told it's free and then be harassed for donations the whole time which usually spoils the experience of visiting wherever it is.
Totally agree.
Also, free museums are rammed full of people (in London at least) who don't appreciate or value what they're seeing, partly because it's free.
They amble around chatting, making noise or staring at their phones instead.
I .
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.
I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.
I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.
The point is that British people see the galleries and museums as belonging to us. They have donation points where they sometimes specify 'for new works'. You're thinking too much like a Tory
Free entry to museums is one of those subsidies for the middle classes (like grammar schools) that is wildly popular among the otherwise economically flinty. I guess we'll wait for some time before a party proposes free entry to football matches.
label it a subsample if you like - it is one, in the same way that all individual elections are. It's a real actual election where the Lib Dem vote went from < 5% to 45% and Labour headed downwards by 29%. There have been a number of repeats of that pattern up and down the country over the past 6 months. But please carry on assuming that contests in the north are all Labour v UKIP. Just don't complain if you lose money betting on it.
This is another seat, alongside Copeland, where Labour has been the incumbent party since the year dot but now looks quite vulnerable.
Hunt had a healthier majority than Reed, but the risk here for Labour is of its vote being carved up by several challengers and one of those coming through the middle.
The Lib Dems look as though they are starting too far behind to win, but they could be a very important factor nonetheless. They almost doubled their vote share versus 2015 in the Sleaford by-election, and that was in unpromising territory where they did not have a record of recent strength to look to; as is pointed out above they were a decent second in this seat as recently as 2010, so they'll be hoping to make something of a comeback.
Recent national VI polls suggest quite a lot of churn in the Lib Dem vote, with the exchange of 2015 voters between the party and Labour running in favour of the yellows. If they do reasonably well then they could easily knock 10% off Labour's vote share, and make Stoke Central a genuine three-way marginal.
After that, it's down to whether the Tories and Ukip can steal enough Labour voters between them for one or the other to get over the winning line in first place. The main issues with that are (a) that Stoke Central is not very well-off and, therefore, not necessarily fertile territory for the Tories; and (b) that past experience tells us not to place too much trust in the ability of Ukip to actually win Commons seats: they have, of course, only ever got into the House through defections so far.
I would like to think that the Tories could pull this one off - a win would be very damaging to the morale of Labour, and I dare say that they'd like to make sure that Ukip doesn't get another toehold in Parliament - but Labour does go into this one defending a 16pt advantage over the nearest challengers, which will be hard to make up completely even if the Lib Dems cause some mischief. If I am right in my suspicion that the whole Leave/Remain thing is only really important to a minority of voters, then I suspect that Labour will hold on to this one.
@isam Given your views I'm grateful you opt out of local decision making on multi million pound budgets and local social policy choices. However you hint at the Big Question. Will the small but crucial group of voters who found Leave's Big Red Lie bus the first thing worth voting for in 25 years return to type ? I genuinely don't know. However if they do the Referendum will have a radioactive half-life albeit a long one.
Decisions are made by those that show up.If these pivotal leave voters are an electoral Halley's Comet the Status Quo Ante will slowly reassert it's self.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
It is not a very principled approach to life. maybe you should join the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats - neither are that bothered about principles although they say they are and preach endlessly to the rest of us mere mortals who accept the realities of this world and vote Conservative with clear consciences
Things really are deteriorating on a weekly basis. The organised parliamentary left in Britain is trapped in a pincer movement between Corbynism and the neonativism of post industrial voters.If the Blairites are surrendering then it's over. Worse still Corbynism is breeding with neonativism. Corbyn's wage ratios nonsense blotted out his new Red Brexit shift.
We're shifting to a new dialectic where British politics is defined as crudely George Osborne vs Nigel Farage. It's why May's triangulation between these two poles is being so successful in the short term at least. How the party structures catch up with this I don't know. But the real and present danger is this. We stop switching between Conservative and Labour governments and start switching between Mayist Conservative governments and Cameroonian Coalition ones.
The new high water mark for the British Left will be Clegg style coalition's draging the Conservatives away from it's new Mayist axis. Even this will be delayed because Clegg broke every rule of coalition government and destroyed the Liberal Democrats.
And of course ' Britain ' is now a contested term due to the SNP's separate project.
In effect we know have two centre right potential governments, the Single Market vs the Nissan Comfort letter. Kulturkampf replacing economic philosophy.
Inevitable. Most people people will choose Mayism over Maoism.
But it won't be like that forever. Another leader will rise on the left (not necessarily in Labour) who will challenge the hard left and want to start winning again.
Breaking news: Residents of Jaywick worried that their homes will not be washed away.
LOL
Jaywick is one of the most deprived parts of the country, and the evacuees will have had to abandon most of whatever little they do own (which, in many cases, will be uninsured) to the mercy of a potentially lethal storm surge, as they flee for their lives.
Apart from that, the situation is absolutely fucking hilarious.
Free entry to museums is one of those subsidies for the middle classes (like grammar schools) that is wildly popular among the otherwise economically flinty. I guess we'll wait for some time before a party proposes free entry to football matches.
Would you start charging for entry to libraries?
Given who uses libraries nowadays, there's a lot to be said for that now. I would use the revenues raised to address the digital divide, supporting those who actually need a subsidy in getting access to information and reading material.
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
We see this claim almost every day, and there is no evidence to support it.
Yes, 48% voted for remain. We have no reason to believe they still support remain. Some will have been persuaded to remain because of loyalty to Camborne or the Tory Party. Some will have believed the Punishment Budget and assorted Treasury doomsaying, now discredited. Some will have genuinely been in favor of remain, but now moved on and decided the die is cast. I would suggest some what less than half that number are sufficiently committed to the issue to let it sway their vote, especially outside London.
Free entry to museums is one of those subsidies for the middle classes (like grammar schools) that is wildly popular among the otherwise economically flinty. I guess we'll wait for some time before a party proposes free entry to football matches.
Would you start charging for entry to libraries?
You aren't receiving the service from admission to the library (a library can be in the back of a van) - it's a transitory arrangement for the temporary loan of a book, following which you are charged if you're late. But, some libraries do charge for DVD hire. Which I think is fair enough.
Museums and galleries occupying (often) huge buildings, that require staffing, archiving, curating and presenting a story, as well as educating, are vastly more complex, with far higher overheads, and the service and experience is provided entirely on site.
One thing always puzzled me about Tony Crosland and Labour's approach to Grammars. Why was an ex-public schoolboy so set against selection by ability, yet seemingly happy with selection by money?
Which Marxist principle guided that?
It's not so much the grammar school argument itself that I'm interested in, but the general concept that it appears to be regarded as hypocritical by many people to argue against a system that you personally benefit from but feel is disadvantageous to most. This doesn't seem wrong to me.
Isn't it the case that someone has enjoyed that advantage but wants to pull the ladder up behind them and deny others that same opportunity?
Absolutely. Grammar schools were the best way of getting people to move from the working class to the middle class. Too many middle class recipients of that system now oppose letting the next generation of working classes climb the ladder, in favour of their own now middle class children.
In working class areas, grammar school support is as high as it's ever been.
As some pollsters point out, support for grammar schools falls significantly when you remind the voters that more grammar schools equals more seconds moderns for those who fail to get into a grammar school.
Precisely.
Ok go the whole hog the and pay for public school like TSE. Then pull up the drawbridge and sneer at the plebs.
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.
I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.
I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.
We would not have spent three hours in Derby Museum over Christmas if there had been an entry fee. Not just because we're tight, but because an entrance fee acts as a barrier. As it is, we gave a donation as that *feels* different.
You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.
I'd actually go more often to the Natural History Museum, if I had to pay for it.
For me, it enhances my appreciation and heightens the experience, and I feel I have a stake in it.
Nothing stopping you making a donation.
It's awesome that you can take four kids out to the world's best science/art/history/etc for nothing more than the cost of travel and a packed lunch. Anyone who goes to a private attraction will attest to how quickly it all adds up.
Having paid the thick end of a couple of hundred quid on the train, and getting on for the same again to stay in London, somehow the thought of spending 50p each to get my family into a museum doesn't fill me with dread
"There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them." Surely, there can't be that many museums, charities or broadcasting companies based in London offering well paid jobs.
label it a subsample if you like - it is one, in the same way that all individual elections are. It's a real actual election where the Lib Dem vote went from < 5% to 45% and Labour headed downwards by 29%. There have been a number of repeats of that pattern up and down the country over the past 6 months. But please carry on assuming that contests in the north are all Labour v UKIP. Just don't complain if you lose money betting on it.
No need to be touchy! I've backed the lib Dems in Stoke so I hope I do lose my money!!!
I just think it is borderline ridiculous to extrapolate from 1.8k when we have a 134k survey as well, but youre free to do what you want any old time
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
Nest you'll be wanting them as exclusive as Ronnie Scott's!
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
But it's predictable how quickly these arguments always boil down to exclusivity, rather than ensuring a strong cultural heritage by giving museums the freedom to fund and grow themselves, and design their own admissions regime, whilst ensuring access for all.
I also strongly disagree; it was an awful New Labour idea.
I think it's important for everyone to pay something, to have that contract and connection between what they're seeing and an outlay of value.
We would not have spent three hours in Derby Museum over Christmas if there had been an entry fee. Not just because we're tight, but because an entrance fee acts as a barrier. As it is, we gave a donation as that *feels* different.
You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.
I'd actually go more often to the Natural History Museum, if I had to pay for it.
For me, it enhances my appreciation and heightens the experience, and I feel I have a stake in it.
Nothing stopping you making a donation.
It's awesome that you can take four kids out to the world's best science/art/history/etc for nothing more than the cost of travel and a packed lunch. Anyone who goes to a private attraction will attest to how quickly it all adds up.
Life is expensive. Having kids is expensive. I don't see why London museums should be free, and other things not.
I go to English Heritage and National Trust sites most (outside of London) and always pay for both.
Stonehenge. Massive world heritage site. Charges.
As a result it can invest in new facilities, and a better customer experience.
In effect we know have two centre right potential governments, the Single Market vs the Nissan Comfort letter. Kulturkampf replacing economic philosophy.
If you lucky. If May shilly shallies over BrExit and pisses off the right of her party, especially those recently rejoining from the Kippers, and if the EU is sufficiently intransigent, and continues to make a complete bollocks of its public relations as is currently happening it might be a Tory-Kipper coalition next!
I remember being taken to the museum in Paisley by my mother who left school at the age of 14 when I was 5. She was insistent that I did not climb onto the stuffed animals which were the first things you saw when you entered the building.
We were not considered middle class as far as I know.
@isam Given your views I'm grateful you opt out of local decision making on multi million pound budgets and local social policy choices. However you hint at the Big Question. Will the small but crucial group of voters who found Leave's Big Red Lie bus the first thing worth voting for in 25 years return to type ? I genuinely don't know. However if they do the Referendum will have a radioactive half-life albeit a long one.
Decisions are made by those that show up.If these pivotal leave voters are an electoral Halley's Comet the Status Quo Ante will slowly reassert it's self.
Die hard political nerds are interested in and show up for crummy council by elections, & the lib Dems have far more of them than Ukip
"There is a growing list of Labour MPs preparing to take the Chiltern Hundreds and yes you could all probably name them." Surely, there can't be that many museums, charities or broadcasting companies based in London offering well paid jobs.
Naive to the nth degree.
There are always plenty ofwell-paid sinecures for the well-heeled urban luvvies.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
@isam I agree with you on that. I'm just pointing out it's a form of self selection. Too many are lionising the ' I hadn't voted for 25 years ' crowd over the Leave victory. Not voting means you are ignored. So whether these Halley's Comet voters move into a much shorter orbit is a Big Question. Mrs B and others are right to ask it.
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters) - Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness - UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings - Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas - Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
Surely a key relevant factor is that these are by-elections and local ones at that! The national polling assumes a GE and a much bigger turnout. I voted remain but would not vote LD - I think i may not be alone. There really isn't 48% to play for. For national success the party needs policies for the post-Brexit future.
When we are post-Brexit that would indeed be a good idea. Currently, pre-Brexit, it's a good idea to have policies for the type of Brexit we should have.
Assuming of course that it in the government's gift
"Bonsoir M. Barnier, having won the approval of parliament we hereby enact Article 50 on behalf of the British people"
"Magnifique... and we offer you... nothing, now piss off"
@isam Given your views I'm grateful you opt out of local decision making on multi million pound budgets and local social policy choices. However you hint at the Big Question. Will the small but crucial group of voters who found Leave's Big Red Lie bus the first thing worth voting for in 25 years return to type ? I genuinely don't know. However if they do the Referendum will have a radioactive half-life albeit a long one.
Decisions are made by those that show up.If these pivotal leave voters are an electoral Halley's Comet the Status Quo Ante will slowly reassert it's self.
Die hard political nerds are interested in and show up for crummy council by elections, & the lib Dems have far more of them than Ukip
Yup.
Only the engaged turn out for parish council elections, the relatively tuned in turn out for Parly by-elections, and the majority turns out for general elections.
Strikes me that one reason we're seeing more on the left questioning polls than ever before (remember, historically, they overestimate left support) is because the truly politically engaged have more data points than usual (we've had more Parly by elections in recent history than in my living memory)- the fact that they attract variable audiences is not taken sufficiently into account. Nor is the time of year in which they're staged....
@isam I agree with you on that. I'm just pointing out it's a form of self selection. Too many are lionising the ' I hadn't voted for 25 years ' crowd over the Leave victory. Not voting means you are ignored. So whether these Halley's Comet voters move into a much shorter orbit is a Big Question. Mrs B and others are right to ask it.
Yes fair enough. I just think that using % of the vote in the council by election and then comparing with the referendum is a bit misleading when it is 1.3% of the referendum turnout
Comments
Amusing convo here - @Pong look at what you could have won
Lab 20-25 33/1
25+ 33/1
Me: Pong wants some of the 33s.
Whats your limits
Sam: He had £15.15?
Me: No, he doesn't want any more because he's on at lower odds...
Which I find a bit odd !
Sam:He doesn't want anything??
Me:Am asking him ! No reply so far.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2611765/
"The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote late Thursday that FBI Director James Comey should resign, and charged him with politicizing decisions at the FBI that have hurt both parties.
"Mr. Comey has a long history of apparently political decisions, a point we underscored when President Obama nominated him for the FBI job in 2013," the board said. That includes pushing for the prosecution of Republican targets like Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and others.
"Liberals didn't mind these prosecutorial excesses because they didn't like Mr. Comey's targets," the board said. But recently, Comey has been blamed by Democrats for helping President-elect Trump defeat Hillary Clinton, by revealing an extended investigation into her emails with just days to go before the November election.
"Because both parties dislike him does not make Mr. Comey an honest arbiter who is above politics," the board wrote. "His actions reveal that he is willing to violate Justice Department procedure and standards for his own political purposes."
Comprehensives in working class areas struggle to attract - let alone retain - good heads and teachers. So they are often doomed to fail..
Grammar schools in the same areas tend to have more success at both..
The Liverpool Tate was compete rubbish, though. Full of conceptual bollocks. One 'exhibit' looked like the inside of my garage when I hadn't tidied it for a year or so. Utter shite; it was free, but I wuz robbed.
I am a big fan of Brits being able to wander round the museums for free; as I have mentioned, I think it would be fine to charge tourists. If, however, that is all priced in to the overall arrival numbers then I can live with it being free for tourists to have free entry also.
The original issue was that the V&A is elitist. Which I disputed and dispute strongly.
Nothing done on a muck up not a bad result!
You are not a politician, and therefore are not particularly being hypocritical. The problem with politicians is they they're taking advantage of something they think is bad and are therefore trying to prevent others from taking advantage of.
If you were to campaign against them, you'd also be being hypocritical. And I agree with the point someone made about coaching.
There's also an argument to be made that by denying your long comp a good child, you're pushing them down. If you believe in inclusivity it should apply to you and yours as much as it does to others.
Owen Jones could be the curator.
Tourists - who can't - have to pay.
I'm not sure I buy SeanT's arguments on museums being a national economic multiplier from tourists. Tourism was booming here in the 1990s as well (when museums charged) but plenty are now struggling now for want of grants or funding. Museums charging worldwide is common, and not much of a deterrent.
Funding shortages are much more of a problem, and closures are a greater threat to culture.
Lib Dems 50/1>7/1
Ukip 9/2 >5/2
Labour 2/7<4/7
Imperial War Museum, Science Museum and National History - yes, in that order.
I also loved the Museum of the Moving Image (gone) when I was a kid, and the Transport Museum. Beaulieu National Motor Museum? I'd be jumping off the walls.
Basically, I like war, machines, science, and technology. Most 'art' (not all) does nothing for me, nor pottery, trinkets or clothes.
And I think the British Museum is boring, which virtually no-one else agrees with me on.
I have to disagree with you on this; making many museums free was one of New Labour's better ideas.
And also as Sean said they're one of he attractions to our big cities particularly London and Edinburgh so they almost certainly pay for themselves by the additional tourists. I also think it adds to the sense of a creative hub for which the UK particularly London has a deserved reputation
For example on the provisional boundaries, Owen Smith's Pontypridd seat is split down the middle, so he can potentially challenge the Cynon Valley or Rhondda MPs for the new "Cynon Valley and Pontypridd" or "Rhondda and Llantrisant" seats.
On the other hand, Stephen Kinnock isn't able to challenge for Ogmore and Port Talbot as he only has 38% and so would have to go against the Neath MP for "Neath and Aberavon"
If Lab win Stoke C the new MP will have to go against the Stoke S MP for 1 seat. Likewise the if Lab win Copeland the new MP would have to go against the Workington MP for 1 seat. Perhaps this is part of the reason Reed and Hunt stood down as they weren't sure they would win against the other MPs.
I think I was about 11 or 12 when I visited the BM alone for the first time and have lost count of the number of times just spent visiting the ancient Egyptian halls. Needless to say I love the place and wished I could visit more often.
What intrigued me, though, is the accusation of hypocrisy. Generally speaking, it seems strange to me that it should be regarded as immoral to campaign against a system that you regard as disadvantageous to most people just because you happen to have been one of the few beneficiaries of the system.
Edit: Apologies to OGH, by the way, for any derailing of the thread. I'll shut up about this now.
I doubt that many of the tourists would be put off visiting if the museums charged modest entry fees. Plenty of other places in London do.
So I'm not convinced about the specifics of the argument anyway but on the broader point, the principle that museums should be free closes off a source of income that might be vital to less fortunately sited institutions elsewhere in the country - and the notion that London museums could be free, subsidised by foreign travellers, while provincial ones charged would go down like an exhibit of cold sick among the voting public, even if there were economic logic to it.
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/galleries/level-3/room-113-ironwork/
But perhaps that's just me.
At Christmas we dumped the little 'un on my family and went into Derby for the day. We went out for a meal (at the Silk Mill, some of the best pub grub we've had in ages) and then to Derby Museum and art gallery. I haven't been in there since I was a teenager, and it's been thoroughly modernised.
We ended up spending three hours inside when we should have been doing some retail therapy.
Yes, it's provincial. But Mrs J was amazed to find a painting she had known of since she was a child: Joseph Wright's 'The Orrery': a true masterpiece.
https://www.derbymuseums.org/locations/museum-art-gallery/joseph-wright-gallery
I should blame both of them for utter selfshness but I don't. The Titanic has been deliberately rammed into the Iceberg. They did their best. I can't blame them for being first to the life boats. I share neither of their particular politics but my views are niche. Any left of centre governing coalition in the UK is going to include the Reeds and Hunts of this world. But they are walking off the pitch. And I don't blame them.
The Oxford Rejection Letter. A Retrospective Exhibition.
Sunderland voted for Brexit 61% to 39%
Sunderland last night council by-election:
LDEM: 45.0% (+41.5)
LAB: 25.0% (-29.9)
UKIP: 18.7% (-7.2)
CON: 10.0% (-5.7)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)
IIRC Mike did a thread a short while ago that showed that the Lib Dem vote was up more in Leave areas than it was in Remain ones.
Relevant factors as I see it
- turnout (Leavers less likely to be regular voters)
- Labour's poor ratings and general impression of uselessness
- UKIP have no idea how to campaign and have strong unfavourably ratings
- Tories the party of government, plus not very impressive at the moment and toxic in some areas
- Remainers and centrists coalescing around the Lib Dems
THe Lib Dems are the only party going after Remainers. They are 48% of the country. Work out for yourselves whether that is likely to produce better results for the Lib Dems than national polling has hitherto suggested.
Edit: typo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/gossip
You don't need to pay for something to see it has value. I don't pay directly for my rather good local library every time I go in, but I still value and treasure it.
Edit
Referendum was 134,400
Last night 1,832
Equivalent of a sub sample
For me, it enhances my appreciation and heightens the experience, and I feel I have a stake in it.
Weirdly, had to go to BBC for referendum turnout as the official results on the Sunderland City Council website don't have turnout on them.
It's awesome that you can take four kids out to the world's best science/art/history/etc for nothing more than the cost of travel and a packed lunch. Anyone who goes to a private attraction will attest to how quickly it all adds up.
China rising
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4116074/Trump-pick-talk-way-war-Chinese-media.html
I did want to go to Nottingham, but that city's even more anti-car than Cambridge.
Personally, I wouldn't bother voting in a local council election, don't think I ever have.
We're shifting to a new dialectic where British politics is defined as crudely George Osborne vs Nigel Farage. It's why May's triangulation between these two poles is being so successful in the short term at least. How the party structures catch up with this I don't know. But the real and present danger is this. We stop switching between Conservative and Labour governments and start switching between Mayist Conservative governments and Cameroonian Coalition ones.
The new high water mark for the British Left will be Clegg style coalition's draging the Conservatives away from it's new Mayist axis. Even this will be delayed because Clegg broke every rule of coalition government and destroyed the Liberal Democrats.
And of course ' Britain ' is now a contested term due to the SNP's separate project.
In effect we know have two centre right potential governments, the Single Market vs the Nissan Comfort letter. Kulturkampf replacing economic philosophy.
Perhaps the writer was tyred?
It's a real actual election where the Lib Dem vote went from < 5% to 45% and Labour headed downwards by 29%. There have been a number of repeats of that pattern up and down the country over the past 6 months. But please carry on assuming that contests in the north are all Labour v UKIP. Just don't complain if you lose money betting on it.
Hunt had a healthier majority than Reed, but the risk here for Labour is of its vote being carved up by several challengers and one of those coming through the middle.
The Lib Dems look as though they are starting too far behind to win, but they could be a very important factor nonetheless. They almost doubled their vote share versus 2015 in the Sleaford by-election, and that was in unpromising territory where they did not have a record of recent strength to look to; as is pointed out above they were a decent second in this seat as recently as 2010, so they'll be hoping to make something of a comeback.
Recent national VI polls suggest quite a lot of churn in the Lib Dem vote, with the exchange of 2015 voters between the party and Labour running in favour of the yellows. If they do reasonably well then they could easily knock 10% off Labour's vote share, and make Stoke Central a genuine three-way marginal.
After that, it's down to whether the Tories and Ukip can steal enough Labour voters between them for one or the other to get over the winning line in first place. The main issues with that are (a) that Stoke Central is not very well-off and, therefore, not necessarily fertile territory for the Tories; and (b) that past experience tells us not to place too much trust in the ability of Ukip to actually win Commons seats: they have, of course, only ever got into the House through defections so far.
I would like to think that the Tories could pull this one off - a win would be very damaging to the morale of Labour, and I dare say that they'd like to make sure that Ukip doesn't get another toehold in Parliament - but Labour does go into this one defending a 16pt advantage over the nearest challengers, which will be hard to make up completely even if the Lib Dems cause some mischief. If I am right in my suspicion that the whole Leave/Remain thing is only really important to a minority of voters, then I suspect that Labour will hold on to this one.
Mr. Hopkins, the enormo-haddock blog offers far superior coverage (allowing for the budget difference).
Decisions are made by those that show up.If these pivotal leave voters are an electoral Halley's Comet the Status Quo Ante will slowly reassert it's self.
Inevitable. Most people people will choose Mayism over Maoism.
But it won't be like that forever. Another leader will rise on the left (not necessarily in Labour) who will challenge the hard left and want to start winning again.
Apart from that, the situation is absolutely fucking hilarious.
Yes, 48% voted for remain. We have no reason to believe they still support remain. Some will have been persuaded to remain because of loyalty to Camborne or the Tory Party. Some will have believed the Punishment Budget and assorted Treasury doomsaying, now discredited. Some will have genuinely been in favor of remain, but now moved on and decided the die is cast. I would suggest some what less than half that number are sufficiently committed to the issue to let it sway their vote, especially outside London.
Museums and galleries occupying (often) huge buildings, that require staffing, archiving, curating and presenting a story, as well as educating, are vastly more complex, with far higher overheads, and the service and experience is provided entirely on site.
So I think it valid to charge for entry to that.
I just think it is borderline ridiculous to extrapolate from 1.8k when we have a 134k survey as well, but youre free to do what you want any old time
I go to English Heritage and National Trust sites most (outside of London) and always pay for both.
Stonehenge. Massive world heritage site. Charges.
As a result it can invest in new facilities, and a better customer experience.
We were not considered middle class as far as I know.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/13/thousands-of-jobs-to-go-in-government-shakeout-of-welfare-to-work-sector?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
So say the BBC.
So will the by election be fought on new boundaries? No. It seems silly and a waste of taxpayers money that the by-election be staged at all.
"Bonsoir M. Barnier, having won the approval of parliament we hereby enact Article 50 on behalf of the British people"
"Magnifique... and we offer you... nothing, now piss off"
Only the engaged turn out for parish council elections, the relatively tuned in turn out for Parly by-elections, and the majority turns out for general elections.
Strikes me that one reason we're seeing more on the left questioning polls than ever before (remember, historically, they overestimate left support) is because the truly politically engaged have more data points than usual (we've had more Parly by elections in recent history than in my living memory)- the fact that they attract variable audiences is not taken sufficiently into account. Nor is the time of year in which they're staged....